If it’s true, you’d have to think that the reasoning is that if May isn’t there it’s just going to be be him stood on television with four or five other people tearing chunks out of him because him and his party are the biggest target in the room. I guess they think he’d only stand to lose out from it, whereas with May on he’ll be able to outperform her and the others will be focusing on her at least as much as him, if not more.

But it’s a massive miscalculation if true. Completely wasting an open goal as you say @Electrifying.

Maybe, but I think the empty chair of May will get roasted and she won’t be able to answer back. It is the perfect time for Jeremy to get his vision scross with no distortion from the media. He can easily deflect any criticism he gets on to May for not being there at all either.

The debates is how we got Cleggmania. The public could grow to like Jeremy Corbyn by seeing him as the nice man he is. But this is ridiculous. Can’t believe what is going on at Labour.

This is true. I remember the same thing happened in 2015 when David Cameron refused to one. I think it was the one with all party leaders. In the end it was just Ed Miliband getting slated by a coalition of Lib dem/PC/SNP/Green with a bit of Farage thrown in haha.

Still, I don’t think it’ll do Corbyn much harm to take part tbh. He, more than anyone, needs to get his message across.

If this was a 3 party platform like Clegg had he could have a big of Cleggmania by saying what people want to hear but now we have to include the SNP and PC then it’s just going to be parties that think they can take seats from Labour trying to run them down. In 2010 I seem to remember the debates being quite civilised but I think in 2015 they were a bit stuid and I’m expecting more of the same. The only silver lining would be the SNP not making him look like a coward over nuclear weapons.

You know what I really hate about modern politics is whole ‘Gotcha’ moment. Instead of focusing on the actual pros and cons of the policy the miscalculation is sensationalized. I hate TV debates because of this, just because someone is sharper or can enunciate their policies clearly doesn’t mean they can be a good leader or that they are a better option. The electorate needs to be smarter.

Although not being prepared to discuss your new policy doesn’t look good that particular interview is not indicative of the Labour’s ability to enact it or properly budget for it.

If I could give a post more than one ‘like’, it’d be this one. Unfortunately is an inherent problem with modern day politics, perhaps stretching further back than I’d like to think. It’s also why I’m not a massive fan of TV debates, it’s just trying to sensationalised politics.

Unfortunately there is rarely a battle of ideas put to the electorate, with the pros and cons of each being given fairly weighed and debated.

I was doing research into once. I would have loved to write a dissertation on a topic that explores this. Starting point would obviously be JFK and Nixon debate (saw a great documentary on Netflix called ‘Race to the White House’ about this particular election campaign too).

Apparently everybody who listened on the radio thought Nixon had crushed JFK but the TV viewers overwhelmingly believed JKF won because Nixon was suffering from a range of issues which undermined his performance. Very interesting to study the effects of perception on the masses.

In my mind the person who meant to be running the country is probably some introverted nerd in an office somewhere crunching numbers for a living who hates public speaking and has poor people skills. We’ll never get the right candidates because the electorate prefers ‘sexy’ polished candidates.

That’s very interesting! I imagine the same could probably be said of the David Cameron and Ed Miliband debate it 2015, just looking at what they said would probably paint a different picture than what the perception from the TV audiences.

You’d like the book called ‘Society of the Spectacle’ by Guy Debod. It’s a rather tough read at times, but the overriding point is very much the one that you make.

And you’re probably right, but isn’t that going down the line of a form of technocracy? Public speaking is an important tool for me (shouldn’t be the overriding reason why you vote for someone, a la David Cameron or Obama), I think it’s key to motivate voters.

Anyway, I guess we really started going down this path under Tony Blair, and the constant need for a good PR image.

It’s manufactured consent the tv and news paper tell the public something and repeat it over and over again. By doing this people start to believe it’s true even if it’s not like the whole Russia hacked the election in America . And Brenie sanders could not win no it’s Corbyn is unelectable which has been repeated so many times. But no one ever asked why is that? He was elected to the labour leader not once but twice with a bigger mandate the second time. So why is he not electable? Is it because he is not establishment like the rest, pro war like the rest or pro Israel/Saudi like the rest

The Deficit Myth! So, May and the conservatives When Are You Going to admit and apologise? ?

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”

Winston Churchill

As long as the tory parycontinues to talk down the economy via the blame game, confidence will not be given an opportunity to return. For it is an undeniable and inescapable economic fact: without confidence and certainty there can be no real growth.

Below are the three deficit claims - the mess. The evidence comes from the IMF, OECD, OBR, HM Treasury, and ONS

CLAIM 1
The last government left the biggest debt in the developed world.

After continuously stating the UK had the biggest debt in the world George Osborne admits to the Treasury Select Committee that he did not know the UK had the lowest debt in the G7? Watch: Also, confirmed by the OECD Those who use cash terms (instead of percentages) do so to scare, mislead and give half the story.

Its common sense, in cash terms a millionaire’s debt would be greater than most people. Therefore, the UK would have a higher debt and deficit than most countries because, we are the sixth largest economy. Hence, its laughable to compare UK’s debt and deficit with Tuvalu’s who only have a GDP/Income of £24 million whilst, the UK’s income is £1.7 Trillion.

Finally, Labour in 1997 inherited a debt of 42% of GDP. By the start of the global banking crises 2008 the debt had fallen to 35% - a near 22% reduction page 6 ONS Surprisingly, a debt of 42% was not seen as a major problem and yet at 35% the sky was falling down?

CLAIM 2
Labour created the biggest deficit in the developed world by overspending.

Firstly, the much banded about 2010 deficit of over 11% is false. This is the PSNB (total borrowings) and not the actual budget deficit which was -7.7% - OBR Economic and Fiscal Outlook March 2012 page 19 table 1.2

Secondly, in 1997 Labour inherited a deficit of 3.9% of GDP (not a balanced budget ) and by 2008 it had fallen to 2.1% - a reduction of a near 50% - Impressive! Hence, it’s implausible and ludicrous to claim there was overspending. The deficit was then exacerbated by the global banking crises after 2008. See HM Treasury. Note, the 1994 deficit of near 8% haaaaaah!

Thirdly, the IMF have also concluded the same. They reveal the UK experienced an increase in the deficit as result of a large loss in output/GDP caused by the global banking crisis and not even as result of the bank bailouts, fiscal stimulus and bringing forward of capital spending. It’s basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases.

Finally, the large loss in output occurred because the UK like the US have the biggest financial centres and as this was a global banking crises we suffered the most. Hence, the UK had the 2nd highest deficit in the G7 (Not The World) after the US and not as a result of overspending prior to and after 2008- as the IMF concur.

CLAIM 3
Our borrowing costs are low because the markets have confidence in the conservatives austerity plan and without it the UK will end up like Greece.

Yes, the markets have confidence in our austerity plan and that’s why PIMCO the worlds largest bond holder have been warning against buying UK debt.

The real reason why our borrowing costs have fallen and remained low since 2008 is because, savings have increased. As a result, the demand and price for bonds have increased and as there is inverse relationship between the price of bonds and its yield (interest rate) the rates have fallen. Also, the markets expect the economy to remain stagnate. Which means the price for bonds will remain high and hence, our borrowing costs will also remain low.

Secondly, the UK is considered a safe heaven because, investors are reassured the Bank of England will buy up bonds in an event of any sell off - which increases the price of bonds and reduces the effective rate. Note, how rates fell across the EU recently when the ECB announced its bond buying program. Thirdly, because, we are not in the Euro we can devalue our currency to increase exports. Moreover, UK bonds are attractive because, we haven’t defaulted on its debt for over 300 years.

Conservatives would like people to believe the markets lend in the same way as retail banks lend to you and I.

Overall, when the facts and figures are put into context these juvenile deficit narratives and sound bites (“mere words and no evidence”) simply fail to stand up to the actual facts. The deficit myth is the grosses lie ever enforced upon the people and it has been sold by exploiting people’s economic illiteracy.

The conservatives are a lying machine, it gets proven every time and people will still line up to vote for them in a landslide victory.

This is how the game is played now, it’s all propaganda rather than policy and it’s people’s fault for being stupid enough to believe everything they say.

The only thing that irritates me is it soon turns to “you can’t vote for them” because you’ll get SNP and it’ll destroy the country or because we’ll get nuked and they won’t defend us or they’ll spend us into oblivion. But it won them a surprise majority last time so I can’t see them ever taking a different approach.

The PM launches a stinging attack on the "bureaucrats of Brussels" in a Downing Street speech.

Brexit or not, this is an absolutely extraordinary claim from May. I doubt very much that the EU, which exists to promote the interests of large corporations and financial institutions sees any advantage in either the hard Tory Brexit or Corbyn’s Labour in which Brexit will very much not put their interests first. The allegation that other European governments want to influence the outcome of our election is calculated to make our voters think that there is a threat to unite behind the Tories on, but it makes her sound delusional, and is an outrageous allegation in 21st century Europe.

The allegation that other European governments want to influence the outcome of our election is calculated to make our voters think that there is a threat to unite behind the Tories on, but it makes her sound delusional, and is an outrageous allegation in 21st century Europe.

She has learned from Trump.
She could say almost anything and she would still win the election.
She has the papers on her side, as well as no viable opposition, and the fact that Trump is making her look like a rational and reasonable leader.

There is no way she won’t win comfortably, and it will be by one of the biggest margins in British political history.

Corbyn is almost unelectable, no matter how much sense he talks, and he is leading a rabble who are out of their depth.
Considering Diane Abbott holds one of the highest positions in the party, that shows what a mess Labour are in.
As for the Liberals, I doubt if most of the electorate know who their leader is.